NNAMDI OKOYE V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
March 31, 2025CHARLES DURU v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
March 31, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2020) Legalpedia (CA) 61011
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
Sun Jun 28, 2020
Suit Number: CA/K/325B/2016
CORAM
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUHAMMAD .S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
BALA ALHAJI ILYASU
THE STATE
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Available
SUMMARY OF FACTS
One Alhaji Sani Maitsani, PW2, gave evidence at the High Court of Kastina State, that he and his family members were attacked and robbed of the sum of N34, 480.00 and other valuables by men who were armed with weapons and was shot in the process on his thigh. The Prosecution during the trial paraded 10 witnesses and tendered seven exhibits – extra-judicial statements of the Appellant and his co-accused. The Appellant and other co-accused each testified in their defense but called no other witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant amongst others to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant has appealed to this court wherein it submitted that the failure and/or refusal of the Respondent to tender a single Exhibit out of the 9 listed in the proof of evidence amount to withholding evidence under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether having regard to the failure or refusal of the respondent to tender a single exhibit out of the 9 listed in the proof of evidence, stated to have been allegedly used by the appellant in carrying out the offence of armed robbery, the lower Court was not wrong in holding that the respondent proved her case of armed robbery against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. (Distilled from ground 1) Whether from the available evidence, the lower Court was not wrong in holding that all the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery was proved against the appellant without properly evaluating the available evidence in consequence of which whether the decision is perverse. (Distilled from grounds 2 and 5) Whether the lower Court was wrong in admitting and relying on Exhibits 5A, 5B, 7A and 7B. (Distilled from ground 3)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – MEANING OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
“It is settled in all criminal trials, the burden of proving the guilt of an accused person rests on the prosecution, which has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means establishing the guilt of an accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. It does not means proof beyond all doubts or all shadow of doubts, or proof to the hilt. Consequently, if the evidence is strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. See Akinlolu Vs State (2016) 2 NWLR (Prt 1497) 503, Oseni Vs State (2012) 5 NWLR (Prt 1293) 35, Shehu Vs. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Prt 1195) 112, Jua Vs State (2010) 4 NWLR (Prt 1184) 217 and Ofordike Vs State (2019) 5 NWLR (Prt 1666) 395 at 413’.
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A PROSECUTION’S INABILITY TO TENDER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
“Now, did the failure of the prosecution to tender these physical evidence adversely affected the case of the prosecution? I do not think so, taking into account the facts that the duty of the prosecution is to prove the charge against the accused and the choice of witnesses is the discretion of the prosecution which is unfettered. Likewise, there is no law that states that the prosecution must tender the weapons used in the robbery before a case of armed robbery can be proved beyond reasonable doubt against an accused person. See Ayinde Vs State (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt 1687) 410 at 428.
INTERFERENCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURTS – INSTANCE WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURTS
“It is a notorious fact that appellate Court ought not to interfere with findings of fact of trial Courts which had the unique opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses gives evidence and observing their demeanour in witnesses box. However, where such findings are in fact inferences from findings properly made, the Court of Appeal is in as good a position as the trial Court to come to a decision. See Fabunmi Vs. Agbe (1985) 1 NWLR (Prt 2) 200 at 314, Ukatta Vs. Ndinaeze (1997) 4 NWLR (Prt 499) 257 at 263 and The State Vs. Ajie (2000) 7 SC (Prt 1) 24 at 30-31.
An appellate Court will also interfere with findings of fact where such findings are perverse. And a decision is said to be perverse: –
(a) when it runs counter to the evidence, or
(b) where it has been shown that the trial Court took into account matters which it ought not have taken into account or shuts its eyes to the obvious, or
(c) when it has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
See Incar Ltd Vs. Adegboye (1985) 2 NWLR 455.
CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION – WHETHER ALL CONTRADICTION IS FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE
It has long been laid down by a long chain of authorities that not every contradiction is fatal to the prosecutions case save where such contradiction goes to the substance and materiality of a fact or facts in issue in the charge as to raise doubt in the mind of the Court. See Oduneye vs State (2001) 1 SC (Prt 1) at 15.
CONFESSION – NATURE OF CONFESSION SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A CONVICTION WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
“By virtue of Section 28 of the Evidence Act , a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. Once an accused person makes a statement under caution stating or admitting the offence charged, then that statement becomes confessional. See Kasa Vs State (1994) 5 NWLR (prt 1)124 at 140-141. In Nwachukwu Vs The State (2002) 7 SC (Part 1) 124 at 140 – 141 the Supreme Court has held that a free and voluntary confession of guilt by a prisoner, whether judicial or extra-judicial, if it is direct and positive and is duly made and satisfactorily proved, is sufficient to warrant a conviction without any corroborative evidence. Thus, as long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of a confession which is free and voluntary and in itself fully probable, such confession alone is sufficient to support conviction without corroboration.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – WHETHER THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE REQUIRED NEEDS BE DIRECT EVIDENCE LINKING THE ACCUSED PERSON TO THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE
“The test to be applied to determine the nature and extent of corroboration is to establish that the evidence is an independent testimony that affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. Thus, the corroborative evidence required needs not to be direct evidence linking the accused person to the commission of the offence. It is enough even if it is only circumstantial and connects or tends to connect the accused with its commission. See State Vs Gwangwan (2015) 13 NWLR (Prt 1477) 600, Durugo Vs State (1992) 7 NWLR (Prt 255) 525 and State Vs Yahaya(2019) 13 NWLR (Prt 1690) 397 at 428-429.
DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION – WHETHER THE PROSECUTION IS OBLIGATED TO CALL A PARTICULAR WITNESS
“The duty of the prosecution as stated elsewhere in this judgment is to prove the charge against the accused person and the moment that duty is discharged, the Court can convict the accused person. See State Vs Olatunji (2003) 2-3 SC 85 at 103”.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE – WHETHER A DIRECT AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE
“The law is that such evidence is not, and cannot be classified as hearsay evidence and that it is direct and positive evidence and hence admissible. See Arogundade Vs The State (2009) All FWLR (Prt 469) 423, Olaoye Vs The State (2018) LPELR 43607 (SC), Kamila Vs The State (2018) LPELR-43603 (SC), Anyasodor Vs The State (2018) LPELR 43702 (SC) and FRN Vs Adamu (2018) LPELR 46024 (CA)”.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DUTY OF COURT WHERE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS IN ISSUE
“A confession, if voluntary is deemed to constitute a relevant fact as against only the person who made it. As a corollary, the Courts are bound to reject an accused persons confession which eventuates from torture, duress, threat or inducement. See Nsofor Vs State (2004) 18 NWLR (Prt 905) 74, Saidu Vs State (1982) 4 SC 41, Gbadamosi Vs State(1991) 6 NWLR (Prt 196) 182, Dawa Vs State (1980) 8 11 SC 236 and Ofordike Vs State (supra).
The question of involuntariness, often, arises where as in this case the accused person alleges that he was threatened, tortured or induced in the making of a confessional statement. In other words, though, he made the statement, it was not a product of his free will since he was forced or induced to make it. See Olatunbosun vs State (2013) 11 NWLR (Prt 1382) 167.
Where the voluntariness of a confessional statement is in issue, the trial Court is under obligation to conduct a trial within trial to determine the veracity or otherwise of the claim. In Dairo Vs FRN (2015) LPELR 24303 (SC), Nweze JSC at pages 44-45 said: –
…the raison detre of the evolution of the mini trial or voire dire procedure is to arm the trial Court with a procedural mechanism for sifting the chaffs of involuntary and hence inadmissible evidence from the wheat of admissible evidence whose cogency and probative value are indubitable.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, 2011|
